> unspecified "family members" and never claimed additional sanction for their
> editorial policy based on any precedents articulated by r. zevin himself re
> english vs hebrew versions. I guess I was wondering whether there may have
> been some additional, ex parte so to speak, interactions between artscroll
> and tradition staff in which additional claims were advanced that were not
> included in the published record.
What is published in Tradition is accessible to the world. I have not
checked the old issues.
No distinction was made between English and Hebrew versions. That is
simply my inference: If no change was made in the Hebrew, over many
editions, and a change was made in the English, then either the change in
the English was unauthorized or only the change in the English was
authorized. A third possibility exists: that R. Zevin wanted the Hebrew
altered as well, but that the people in charge were fanatical Zionists and
did not comply with his wishes. I ignore the latter possibility because it
requires too many unnecessary assumptions.
That R. Zevin's widow was mentioned as authorizing the changes, either
orally or in writing, I have no doubt. If not in the published letters,
then b'al peh. To double-check my recollection, I am consulting others who
were involved in the exchange.

If this story has already been mentioned please forgive me:
A certain young man went to see the Gerrer Rebbe (the Bais Yisroel). In
response to the Rebbe's question as to where he was learning he responded
with the name of a well known "Ba'al Teshuva" Yeshiva, quickly adding "But
I'm not a Ba'al Teshuva". To which the Rebbe responded, "Why not?"
Gad Frenkel

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> OK, I don't use baby wipes. Basically, the problem is s'chita
> (squeezing)--the one which is a toldah of m'farek. (Not m'laben,
> since I'm not trying to clean the baby wipe.) I am squeezing the
> water (or whatever liquid) out of the baby wipe in order to make it
> easier to wipe the gook off.
>
> I have heard people argue that you don't really want to squeeze out
> the water; you just want to have a wet cloth because wet cloths clean
> more easily than dry cloths. But, in reality, you do want some
> liquid on the baby, because that makes it easier to clean the baby.
Ok, this makes sense then. R' YGB's statement on Friday didn't scan to me
that he was speaking of baby wipes on Shabbat, as they seemed to be three
unrelated examples (unless I'm really off-base, and yoshon has something
to do with Shabbat as well).
But then, where is there room to be mekil at all with baby wipes on
Shabbat for Ashkenazim? After all, you don't use sponges for cleaning up
either, do you? Sephardim can, according to R' Ovadiah, since there is
neither the intent nor the desire for whatever may be squeezed from it in
the process. In fact the opposite would be true, and we would hope the
sponge would absorb the mess. Unfortunately, being at work, I cannot
provide the source.
>
> There is a contraversial tshuvah (offhand I don't remember which) by
> Rav Moshe permitting people to use wet napkins to wipe a table.
What makes a teshuvah of Rav Moshe controversial? It seems that if his
psak is accepted you would accept the mekil with the mahmir, and go on,
confident that you are operating within the bounds of halacha. Which, I
suppose, brings us back to the topic....
>
> Please, convince me that I may use baby wipes on Shabbat!
I fear that I'm not in a position to do that, but I will (b'li neder) look
up R' Ovadiah's work and relate the sources for you to see if you can work
it out for yourself (which once again brings us back to the topic at
hand...).
---sam

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> > I have heard people argue that you don't really want to squeeze out
> > the water; you just want to have a wet cloth because wet cloths clean
> > more easily than dry cloths. But, in reality, you do want some
> > liquid on the baby, because that makes it easier to clean the baby.
>
I'm not sure ease of cleaning is an issue. The Ben Ish Hai writes (again,
being @work, I don't have the sefer in front of me) that one should use
water to clean oneself after using the bathroom as the Western habit of
using only paper does not clean *thoroughly* enough to be involved in
things of kedusha. So it would appear that thorough cleaning is the
important part, as otherwise he would have written that one should be sure
to clean oneself completely, perhaps by repeated use of dry paper. At no
point does he mention that it requires less effort to use water.
Of course the same might not apply to a baby who is not involved in divrei
kedusha, but what about using baby wipes ourselves on Shabbat then?
---sam

--- Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
> > OK, I don't use baby wipes. Basically, the problem is s'chita
> > (squeezing)--the one which is a toldah of m'farek. (Not m'laben,
> > since I'm not trying to clean the baby wipe.) I am squeezing the
> > water (or whatever liquid) out of the baby wipe in order to make
> it
> > easier to wipe the gook off.
> >
> > I have heard people argue that you don't really want to squeeze
> out
> > the water; you just want to have a wet cloth because wet cloths
> clean
> > more easily than dry cloths. But, in reality, you do want some
> > liquid on the baby, because that makes it easier to clean the
> baby.
>
<snip>
>
> But then, where is there room to be mekil at all with baby wipes on
> Shabbat for Ashkenazim? After all, you don't use sponges for
> cleaning up
> either, do you? Sephardim can, according to R' Ovadiah, since there
> is
> neither the intent nor the desire for whatever may be squeezed from
> it in
> the process.
Why is there no desire for the water that is squeezed out? I think
there is--you need the water to lubricate the area on the baby in
order to (1) reduce friction and (2) make the gook come off more
easily.
If in fact there is no desire for the water then even Ashkenazim
would agree that it's OK--it's a psik reishei d'lo ichpat lei (which
would work coupled with other tzdadim l'kula).
> In fact the opposite would be true, and we would hope
> the
> sponge would absorb the mess. Unfortunately, being at work, I
> cannot
> provide the source.
>
>
> >
> > There is a contraversial tshuvah (offhand I don't remember which)
> by
> > Rav Moshe permitting people to use wet napkins to wipe a table.
>
>
> What makes a teshuvah of Rav Moshe controversial?
It's contraversial only if taken at face value, without the gloss
offered by his son that the case did not involve squeezing water from
the napkin (but just using a damp napkin to attract crumbs). At face
value it's problematic--why isn't this assur because of schita mishum
mefarek?
Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

I was recently told (confirmation and further details would be nice) that
according to R' Herschel Schachter, a mentally retarted person would have
the halachah of a cheireish, not a shoteh.
After all, we hold that a deaf-mute living in the 20th century doesn't have the
din of a cheireish because we've developed the means to teach him halachah.
Therefore it would appear that we define "cheireish" as one who can not
learn the din.
A shoteh, OTOH, might know the din, but is incapable of consistantly acting
on that knowledge.
Lihalachah, this might change the dividing line between a bar chiyuvah
and someone who is too handicapped to be chayav. Being able to act on
the distinction between egoz and k'lippah is the definition of sanity,
not educability.
About the Chasam Sofer's teshuvah: How far would he expect us to go? IOW,
it's one thing to assur handing a mentally retarded child tarfus to eat;
it's a much harder thing to be mechayev adopting mentally retarded children
so that they can grow up in an observant Jewish home. I believe such a
chiyuv does exist -- in the case of a child capable of at least some mitzvos.
However, it is possible that where that level of ability is absent, even the
Chasam Sofer would agree that we need not demand this kind of sacrifice from
the kehillah.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 7-Sep-99: Shelishi, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 34b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim I 20

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
> Why is there no desire for the water that is squeezed out? I think
> there is--you need the water to lubricate the area on the baby in
> order to (1) reduce friction and (2) make the gook come off more
> easily.
But you said yourself that the wipes with less liquid can be used on
Shabbat, even by those who don't use the regular ones. So what's the
benefit of using them if they don't work without squeezing the liquid out?
I would argue that the intent is not to squeeze the water out onto the
baby, but to have it in/on the cloth to allow it to accomplish it's
purpose. in which case, whatever water does come out is an unintended side
effect, which would make it a psik reisha. The fact that the wipes are
wetter than they have to be doesn't necessarily add to the effectiveness.
Aside from which, you most assuredly would not want that extra liquid
dripping back on the baby once it's contaminated, assuming you, like
myself, fold the wipe over and use it a second, or even third time before
discarding it.
>
> If in fact there is no desire for the water then even Ashkenazim
> would agree that it's OK--it's a psik reishei d'lo ichpat lei (which
> would work coupled with other tzdadim l'kula).
That's agreed from the beginning. I suppose it's a matter of viewpoint
whether you desire the liquid or not. In fact R' Ovadiah has a talmid who
disagrees with him on this issue, and prohibits using a sponge on Shabbat.
I can't, at the moment, recall his name or the name of his sefer, though.
I wish I could, because he goes into great detail. I'll try to find it
tonight.
---sam

R. H. Ginsburg writes:
>I apologize for being so pedantic, but anyone can pay for an ad and
>claim that they are any organization and say what they want in the name of
>the Torah etc.etc. The poster wars of Me'ah She'arim often represent just
>that... a few hotheads pay a printer to print posters to make all kinds of
>declarations in the name of "prominent rabbis".
In consideration of this important observation, I am hoping that one of
our Israeli correspondents would be so good as to help me identify the
following signatories on a Kol Korei:
Yehiel Mikhel Feinstein
M.Sh. Shapiro
Mikhel Yehudah Lefkowitz
Zalman Rothberg
Shemuel Auerbach
Details to follow, i.y.H.
k.v.h.t.,
Eli Clark

R"RJHendel's asks:
>QUESTION 2: Electric operated fan
>I bring a solar operated fan outside--the sunlight hits the
>battery, which creates a current and runs a motor that
..turns the fan.
>Have I violated a Biblical Issur? Note: The usual objections
>to electricity---light, fire and completing/building a circuit
>are no longer there.
>IF the fan is sealed I probably have not violated any rabbinic
>issue.
>QUESTION 3: Is solar electricity 1st or 2nd force
>Even if you think the answer to question 2 is prohibited
>nevertheless would the electricity generated by a solar
>cell be 1st or 2nd force. Here is the argument:
>The sunlight hits the cell and then the cell creates
>electricity and then the electricity runs the motor.
>so I regard running the motor as a 2ndary action
>There is a Rambam (last law in Chap 6, Murder) that
>if I throw a stone at a fruit and the fruit kills a baby
>then I do not go into Galuth (because the death
>of the baby come from THE FORCE
>OF MY FORCE (2nd Force) rather than 1st force).
>I infer that this classification as 2nd force is because
>TWO OBJECTS are used
I'd like to comment on question 3 first.
We must first differentiate between koach sheni and koach kocho. The example from
the Rambam is where the stone hit a fruit which then hit the baby. Note that the stone
finished its job when it hit the fruit. The fruit continues on by itself without additional
help from the stone and acted on a third party. This is koach sheni.
If the stone was still necessary for the fruit to act, i.e., it continues to push the fruit
ahead of it, this would be koach kocho.
We can perform a simple test to see which we have. In the Rambam's case, grab the
stone just after it hit the fruit. The fruit goes on to hit the baby because it is no longer
dependent on the initial force. In your fan, remove the sun by blocking it from the cell.
The fan stops immediately. It was still dependent on the initial force.
Koach sheni is grama. Koach kocho is a ma'aseh according to most opinions. For a
detailed halakhic discussion that summarizes all the dei'ot, I recommend. "Ma'aseh
U'grama Ba-halakha" by R' L.Y. Halperin, Sections 4 and 5.
And now to Question 2:
Methinks we are going backwards.
You agreed to rejection of your "removing the preventer" argument. Is bringing the fan
into the sun an improvement? If we are to follow R"SZAuerbach, there is no reason, in
theory, not to permit turning on a fan by actuating the on-off switch assuming its plug
was put in the outlet before Shabbat. Your solar fan is no worse.
So, to have an argument, we have to accept the usually accepted idea that changing
a fan from a static state to a dynamic state, i.e., bringing it to life, is a creative act.
We are then left with the question of the person's responsibility for his act that
caused this active device to come into being. Your only argument can be that the
method you use to activate the fan is not a direct ma'aseh but only grama. In your
third question you claim that bringing the fan into the sun is the first step in a chain
that makes the fan itself to be actuated by koach sheni or perhaps shelishi. As
summarized above, I believe it is koach kocho.
Your argument could be that bringing the fan into the sun is mekarev davar el ha-esh
which, according to some opinions is not as bad as mekarev ha-esh el davar. But, in
your fan, we have a case of mekarev el ha-esh where the resultant action is
immediate. This is similar to the tying a victim before a lion where the lion bites or
eats immediately. The immediacy of the result makes it a ma'aseh, as you will find in
great detail in the above referenced source.
So we still need a simpler way to keep cool on Shabbat in warm weather.
A shana tova to all.
David

--- Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Why is there no desire for the water that is squeezed out? I
> think
> > there is--you need the water to lubricate the area on the baby in
> > order to (1) reduce friction and (2) make the gook come off more
> > easily.
>
>
> But you said yourself that the wipes with less liquid can be used
> on
> Shabbat, even by those who don't use the regular ones. So what's
> the
> benefit of using them if they don't work without squeezing the
> liquid out?
As you may recall, I myself pointed out that such wipes don't work
that well. Clearly, a wipe works better when some liquid goes onto
the baby.
> I would argue that the intent is not to squeeze the water out onto
> the
> baby, but to have it in/on the cloth to allow it to accomplish it's
> purpose.
Do an experiment. Take a semi-dry wipe (that is not tofeach al minat
l'hatfiach) and compare it with a normal wipe. In my experience, the
latter is much better than the former.
> in which case, whatever water does come out is an
> unintended side
> effect, which would make it a psik reisha. The fact that the wipes
> are
> wetter than they have to be doesn't necessarily add to the
> effectiveness.
> Aside from which, you most assuredly would not want that extra
> liquid
> dripping back on the baby once it's contaminated, assuming you,
> like
> myself, fold the wipe over and use it a second, or even third time
> before
> discarding it.
We're not talking about oodles & oodles of water. Just enough water
to moisten the baby's skin and the gook (especially if the gook has
dried somewhat).
Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

In one of his early teshuva tapes, Rabbi Frand relates the following story:
A yeshiva bachur in Israel went to visit the Gerrer Rebbe. When the Rebbe
asked him in which yeshiva he learned, the bachur replied, "I learn in Ohr
Sameach, but I have been religious my whole life; I am not a ba'al teshuva."
The Rebbe responded: "Farvoss nit? (Why not?)"
K'siva vachasima tova,
Elozor Preil

Just a quick comment to David. I have heard Rav Joseph Soloveitchick
speak about PEACE vs TRUTH.
Certainly alot of evil has happened when letting PEACE override
TRUTH. The Rav even learned from the word IMADI in Gen 3-12
that Adams downfall came because of PEACE vs TRUTH (He
preferred not to have a fight with her (IMADI) then confront her).
Nevertheless the Rav did speak about the 4 things that a Scholar
lies about. The Rav pointed out that
---Peace is Gods name
---Truth is only Gods seal
The Rav also pointed out that Kantianism deified truth until it
took precedence over everything including simple human
decency. Not so Judaism, said the Rav, which allowed violation
of truth for social peace.
I think the real issue before us is a clear definition of when Peace
should be preferred and when truth.
Russell Hendel
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I thank Moshe for his erudite discourse on LO TOCHLUM as it
applies to feeding small children rodants, traif and in the succah.
However besides the various distinctions he brought --(is the
OBJECT prohibited (rodants) vs the PLACE (outside the
Succah) --I would answer more simply
>>An intrinsic part of Succah is "EAT LIKE YOU ARE IN
>>A DWELLING".
For example, as a consequence of the DWELLING requirement
we don't eat when it rains (in fact it is prohibited--yes yes..I know
all the distinctions necessary).
Returning to Moshes child---very simply, ---preventing children
from eating all over the place is a clear violation of DWELLING.
(To put it more intuitively it violates the YOM TOV spirit...and should
you retort that that is not an argument...I would respond that Succah
is the ONE MITZVAH where ENJOYMENT is a requirement).
So I give Moshe a heter until the child is 5 or 6 and learning to
discipline himself.
(In passing, Moshe's child is the youngest person ever to
have learned Rambam from me)
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> Rabbi Bechhofer responded to this <<< FWIW, on a tangent, R' Yosef Engel
> (Asvan D'Orysa) says Issurei Shabbos cannot be issurei cheftza, as
> issurim that are tallui b'zman cannot be issurei cheftza. >>>
>
> This is not a tangent, but an important part of this discussion, and I
> thank you for bringing it to our attention. It raises at least two other
> interesting questions:
>
> 1) In what context does R. Engel make that point? Why does it matter
> whether the swing is an issur cheftza or not? If my theory is wrong,
> about the difference between paskening on an object and paskening on an
> action, then what is his point?
>
My Asvan d'Orysa is out on loan to one of our fellow listmembers, so I
cannot answer directly. I am cc'ing RYZ, who, I suspect, may have an AdO
handy to check up on it.
> 2) Is chometz tallui b'zman? If a shailah arises and the rav paskens
> that something is chometz, is this not an issur cheftza?
>
I really do not think so, according to the AdO. Pig is an issur cheftza.
Absent bittul, it cannot be changed to hetter. Chometz is not an issur
cheftza. It will be muttar l'achar zman. But, even chometz is not the same
as a baby swing. I do not thiink that which is banned by a psak - which
may be argued or rescinded - can ever be considered an issur cheftza.
This, too, relates to the AdO - to an adjacent siman on whether issurei
d'rabbonons are issurei cheftza or only gavra.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Josh asks how we are suppose to react
>Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:56 +0200
>From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>Subject: Lubavitch does it again
>I'm looking at the local Jerusalem newspaper, dumbfounded. The
Meshichist
>faction of Chabad just crossed the red line of mutar and assur. Here's
my
>literal transliteration of their advert:
>(Giant letters) RIBONO SHEL OLAM
>(Large letters) Anu lo rotzim et gan ha'eden shelcha
> velo et ha'olam ha'ba shelcha
> anu rotzim otcha ha'rabi milubavitch
> MELECH MALCHEI HAMLACHIM, HAKDOSH BARUCH HU
>(then there's the usual yechi adoneinu ..)
>How are we supposed to react to this ?
>Josh
Very simple....Tell these people that if they are asking that
>they don't want Gan Eden/Olan Haba
>But they do want their Rebbe
then they are denying that the Rebbe is in Gan Eden./Olam Haba
I think these people should therefore be thoroughly reprimanded and
asked by Lubavitch to retract their advertisement (Before it is too late)
Seriously...the Gmarrah teaches that in Olam Haba we all live with
our fellow professionals (I in fact have an ingenious explicit derivation
of this from Posookim).
Those of us who do Mitzvoth for the sake of reward should all yearn
to live in a spiritual world with our spiritual friends and mentors where
we
are free from the viscitudes of the material world
Russell Hendel Phd ASA
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I owe many responses to previous Avodahs. This is towards the
subject of our Mesorah
Mechy asserted that the meaning of "we have the same torah today"
refers to the words
I in turn asserted that it meant that the data transmission was PERFECT
in the sense that a commercial vendor who sold software could not
be sued if he claimed his data was PERFECT as long as he conformed to
commercial standards of data purity (say 1 in a million) EVEN if there
were a few errors
(As I stated a few years ago....even a photocopy machine which is
suppose to be PERFECT can still lose 1 or 2 letters per million. If
however
it lost more you could sue the manufacturer).
Mechy asks some questions and they should be answered.
1) But how can Prophecy have errors
ANSWER: We must distinguish between PROPHECY and its TRANSMISSION
I am assserting that
>>prophecy has no errors
>>transmission has the same HUMAN PERFECTION as a photocopy machine
2) But you are assuming a miracle?
So are you. You are assuming we WILL never lose a word and I am assuming
that
the error rate will never become too high. We each have an assumption.
Why is
yours better than mine
3) What about the present errrors?
Again...as I have said several times..many of them can be resolved by
logic
The simplest example is Gn32-10 (Revia or Azlah Geresh) which can be
resolved by pure semantic and grammatical considerations (I have done
this several times so I will not repeat it).
In fact the real reason I am disagreeing with Mechy is I feel my approach
will
lead to more Talmud Torah, more knowledge of the mesorah and greater
insights.
Russell Hendel; Phd; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.